Let's debate: System Restore

[Xernicus]

Hey guys! I am curious as to what you all think of System Restore, and I think it could be good to start a little debate on it- because there are tech pros (and home users) who are firmly in support of it and others who firmly dislike it.

So let's start with what "System Restore" actually is and does:

System Restore was introduced with Microsoft Windows ME as a way to "rollback" a system after driver installation or modifications of system files rendered a computer unstable. It does this by creating images, or "snapshots" of the Windows Registry, along with key System files and the user profile. In it's initial rendition, a background service would monitor for certain file extensions (like *.exe, *.dll, *.sys, etc) and would create copies of said files and the registry values that associated with them- before they were changed or overwritten. There was/is also a scheduled snapshot point (much like how you might run antivirus once a week) to make a cushion, so to speak, so you would always have a point to restore to. In Windows Vista and later, System Restore began tracking changes at a block-level (think physical data on your disk). It would create copies of every file in the Windows folder, and make images of files outside of the Windows directory, based on file extension filtering. Restore Points are also created automatically when drivers and/or software is installed, and whenever Windows Update runs.

---

Now here's what I think:

I have used System Restore several times over the years, and each and every time- it has done nothing but disappoint. I have never seen it actually fix an issue, but rather mitigate it (ie: buy me time). Most of the times that I have used it, it has actually failed to restore, and would spend 30+ minutes reverting the changes. It's also notorious for being a cesspool for viruses and other malware- it's the first thing malicious software likes to infect, in an attempt to prevent removal.

Although I have used it in the past to quickly get a workstation up and running again, there was always an underlying problem that needed attention, and I feel that it is rather worthless for anything other than quickly getting a "mission critical" machine back up to prevent unscheduled downtime. I also think that it provides users with a false sense of security, and I've seen people tinker with system settings and files with the pretense that "if they mess up", they can "always use System Restore".

Personally, I save my disk space and keep System Restore turned off. I feel that if one really wants a "versioning" file system, shadow copies, or a backup- they need a full backup solution that writes to a separate drive, and has control over every file.

For the average-Joe home user, I think it could serve a purpose. But for anybody who has familiarity with computers, I'd say that System Restore does more harm than good.

Now I'm curious as to what you think! Feel free to post your opinion

[Ann!b@l]

My opinion..

For the average-Joe home user, I think it could serve a purpose. But for anybody who has familiarity with computers, I'd say that System Restore does more harm than good.

this

 

I used restore points few times when I had to fix only one system file at his previous state, most of the time because corrupt\damaged, that a scannow or a quick search to find a copy of this file was not able to do. Each time I did one it was worse\more unstable than before, corrupted more sys files and at the end had to do a clean install.

 

Before Win8, I was used to reinstall my Os in a clean install. Since Win8, I still use scannow but when the latter fails most of the time a Dism scanheath\restorehealth does the job and I do as a last resort a clean reinstall of my Os.

 

All in all, for an average user with some knowledge, the restore system point is not the best option and even a mess in most cases.

Edited September 21, 2015 by Ann!b@l

[Owned]

I dont have the need for using it at all, before i download and install something I make sure it is trusted software and is something actually required. So far the only virus I have ever had was not even on my pc and becouse of downloading something suspicious which I hadn't realised at the time.

But as Annibal said, it is good that the option is available for people who aren't as great with computers or use it for more casual purposes.

 

We have a nas in our house to which we upload backups so we can access those if something does go wrong.

[Raskin]

I have used system restore before with some results.since I have a tendency to go at things independently if a program gets on my PC usually via one of the kids..buggers.. i will go to remove programs and looking at dates of install to verify then go into the c drive and open the programs files and delete any part of the offending program files or sub files it will let me..I like to cripple them first I just like doing that lol..then use malware bytes..if get a virus that won't let me access my PC I go in safe mode..I work on PCs free for people at county trash drop/maintenance place..no garbage pick up here..or for lawn guy...they are poor and I like helping them.they are not computer savy so trying to teach them about backups is pointless..if their HDD is trashed I will get them up with a Linux os .. for myself i us

e a second cloned HDD that is not hooked up and independently update that HDD as a stand alone..I don't do work on my PC so this works for me.. I am no computer

expert and talking about going into registry is not somewhere I will go

Edited September 21, 2015 by Raskin

[Vanaraud]

Had a bit bigger SSD, so I let it take that 10GB for system restore. On 60GB SSD I turned even pagefiles off on SSD, had them on data HDD.

So far the system have worked perfectly or needed clean install anyways(not even booting up). Haven´t seen a point to mess around for hours\days with antivir etc when a clean install takes from USB to SSD max 15 min+ setting it up. 2h tops, not counting in the huuuuuggeeeee update package to DL. Only downside to clean installation is that it takes hours and hours for that 13GB of win8.1 updates to DL, wish there was SP out...

So in short, haven´t used it and I doubt never will. Better solution is to have separate OS disk, and everything else on other disks.

[Radoria]

I never liked system restore myself. It really is a huge buggy mess and is one of the first things I recommend disabling if someone is low on drive space. And there's no substitute for backing up data. Especially with how cheap storage is now. We have dirt cheap usb drives and even free options such as Dropbox or free email accounts with massive amounts of space these days.

 

Whenever I find myself with an unbootable OS, I lean more towards linux live distros. Just slap one on a flash drive and mount the disk to fix whatever happened. Can the load the drive with tons of free and fairly easy to use utilities too.. Antiviruses, password breakers, ethernet drivers, whatever ya need. All for like 5 bucks. Or if it is too much hassle to fix.. Just use it to pull important data from the drive, assuming it's not physically damaged. But that's what RAID and cloning were made for.

 

Windows install CDs even come with a recovery program that you can use to replace corrupted files or run various utilities. And if I'm not mistaken, there's also a repair installation option that just replaces all of the core files without touching any user data. In the end, is tons of methods that blow system restore out of the water.